I
did not arrive in Petrograd until the night of April 3, and therefore
at the meeting on April 4, I could, of course, deliver the report on
the tasks of the revolutionary proletariat only
on my own behalf, and with reservations as to insufficient
preparation.

The
only thing I could do to make things easier for myself—and
for honest opponents—was
to prepare the theses in
writing.
I read them out, and gave the text to Comrade Tsereteli.
I read them twice very
slowly: first at a meeting of Bolsheviks and
then at a meeting of both Bolsheviks and Mensheviks.

I
publish these personal theses of mine with only the briefest
explanatory notes, which were developed in far greater detail in the
report.

THESES

1. In
our attitude towards the war,
which under the new [provisional] government
of Lvov and
Co. unquestionably remains on Russia’s part a predatory
imperialist war owing to the capitalist nature of that government,
not the slightest concession to “revolutionary defencism” is
permissible.

The
class-conscious proletariat can give its consent to a revolutionary
war, which would really justify revolutionary defencism, only on
condition: (a) that the power pass to the proletariat and the
poorest sections of the peasants aligned with the proletariat; (b)
that all annexations be renounced in deed and not in word; (c)
that a complete break be effected in actual fact with all capitalist
interests.

In
view of the undoubted honesty of those broad sections of the mass
believers in revolutionary defencism who accept the war only as a
necessity, and not as a means of conquest, in view of the fact
that they are being deceived by the bourgeoisie, it is necessary
with particular thoroughness, persistence and patience to explain
their error to them, to explain the inseparable connection existing
between capital and the imperialist war, and to prove that without
overthrowing capital it
is impossible to
end the war by a truly democratic peace, a peace not imposed by
violence.

The
most widespread campaign for this view must be organised in the army
at the front.

Fraternisation.

2.The
specific feature of the present situation in Russia is that the
country is passing from
the first stage of the revolution—which, owing to the insufficient
class-consciousness and organisation of the proletariat, placed
power in the hands of the bourgeoisie—to its second
stage,
which must place power in the hands of the proletariat and the
poorest sections of the peasants.

This
transition is characterised, on the one hand, by a maximum of
legally recognised rights (Russia is now the
freest of all the belligerent countries in the world); on the other,
by the absence of violence towards the masses, and, finally, by
their unreasoning trust in the government of capitalists, those
worst enemies of peace and socialism.

This
peculiar situation demands of us an ability to adapt ourselves to
the special conditions
of Party work among unprecedentedly large masses of proletarians who
have just awakened to political life.

3.No
support for the Provisional
Government;
the utter falsity of all its promises should be made clear,
particularly of those relating to the renunciation of annexations.
Exposure in place of the impermissible, illusion-breeding “demand”
that this government,
a government of capitalists, should cease to
be an imperialist government.

4.Recognition
of the fact that in most of the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies our
Party is in a minority, so far a small minority, as against a bloc
of all the petty-bourgeoisopportunist elements,
from the Popular
Socialists and
the Socialist-Revolutionaries down
to the Organising
Committee (Chkheidze, Tsereteli,
etc.), Steklov, etc., etc., who have yielded to the influence of the
bourgeoisie and spread that influence among the proletariat.

The
masses must be made to see that the Soviets of
Workers’ Deputies are the only
possible form
of revolutionary government, and that therefore our task is, as long
as this government
yields to the influence of the bourgeoisie, to present a patient,
systematic, and persistent explanation of the errors of their
tactics, an explanation especially
adapted to the practical needs of the masses.

As
long as we are in the minority we carry on the work of criticising
and exposing errors and at the same time we preach the necessity of
transferring the entire state power to the Soviets of Workers’
Deputies, so that the people may overcome their mistakes by
experience.

5. Not
a parliamentary republic—to return to a parliamentary republic
from the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies would be a retrograde
step—but a republic of Soviets of Workers’, Agricultural
Labourers’ and Peasants’ Deputies throughout the country, from
top to bottom.

Abolition
of the police, the army and the bureaucracy.[1] The
salaries of all officials, all of whom are elective and displaceable
at any time, not to exceed the average wage of a competent worker.

6. The
weight of emphasis in the agrarian programme to be shifted to the
Soviets of Agricultural Labourers’ Deputies.

Confiscation
of all landed estates.

Nationalisation
of all lands
in the country, the land to be disposed of by the local Soviets of
Agricultural Labourers’ and Peasants’ Deputies. The organisation
of separate Soviets of Deputies of Poor Peasants. The setting up of
a model farm on each of the large estates (ranging in size from 100
to 300 dessiatines,
according to local and other conditions, and to the decisions of the
local bodies) under the control of the Soviets of Agricultural
Labourers’ Deputies and for the public account.

7.The
immediate union of all banks in the country into a single national
bank, and the institution of control over it by the Soviet of
Workers’ Deputies.

8.It
is not our immediate task
to “introduce” socialism, but only to bring social production and
the distribution of products at once under the control of
the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies.

9.Party
tasks:

(a)
Immediate convocation of a Party congress;

(b)
Alteration of the Party Programme, mainly:

(1)
On the question of imperialism and the imperialist war.

(2)
On our attitude towards the state and our demand
for a “commune state”[2];

(3)
Amendment of our out-of-date minimum programme;

(c)
Change of the Party’s name.[3]

10.A
new International.

We
must take the initiative in creating a revolutionary International,
an International against the social-chauvinists and
against the “Centre”.[4]

In
order that the reader may understand why I had especially to
emphasise as a rare exception the “case” of honest opponents, I
invite him to compare the above theses with the following objection
by Mr. Goldenberg: Lenin, he said, “has planted the banner of
civil war in the midst of revolutionary democracy” (quoted in
No. 5 of Mr. Plekhanov’s Yedinstvo).

Copy of Lenin's "April Theses"handwritten notes.

Isn’t
it a gem?

I
write, announce and elaborately explain: “In view of the undoubted
honesty of those broad sections
of the mass believers
in revolutionary defencism ... in view of the fact that they are
being deceived by the bourgeoisie, it is necessary
with particular thoroughness,
persistence and patience to
explain their error to them....”

Yet
the bourgeois gentlemen who call themselves Social-Democrats, who do
not belong
either to the broad sections
or to the mass believers
in defencism, with serene brow present my views thus: “The
banner[!] of civil war” (of which there is not a word in the
theses and not a word in my speech!) has been planted(!) “in the
midst [!!] of revolutionary democracy...”.

What
does this mean? In what way does this differ from riot-inciting
agitation, from Russkaya
Volya?

I
write, announce and elaborately explain: “The Soviets of Workers’
Deputies are the only
possible form
of revolutionary government, and therefore our task is to present a
patient, systematic, and persistent explanation of
the errors of their tactics, an explanation especially adapted to
the practical needs of the masses.”

Yet
opponents of a certain brand present my views as a call to “civil
war in the midst of revolutionary democracy”!

I
attacked the Provisional Government for not having
appointed an early date or any date at all, for the convocation of
the Constituent
Assembly,
and for confining itself to promises. I argued that without the
Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies the convocation of
the Constituent Assembly is not guaranteed and its success is
impossible.

And
the view is attributed to me that I am opposed to the speedy
convocation of the Constituent Assembly!

I
would call this “raving”, had not decades of political struggle
taught me to regard honesty in opponents as a rare exception.

Mr. Plekhanov in
his paper called my speech “raving”. Very good, Mr. Plekhanov!
But look how awkward, uncouth and slow-witted you are in your
polemics. If I delivered a raving speech for two hours, how is it
that an audience of hundreds tolerated this “raving”? Further,
why does your paper devote a whole column to an account of the
“raving”? Inconsistent, highly inconsistent!

It
is, of course, much easier to shout, abuse, and howl than to attempt
to relate, to explain, to recall what Marx
and Engels said in 1871, 1872 and 1875 about the experience of
the Paris
Commune and
about the kind of
state the proletariat needs.

Ex-Marxist
Mr. Plekhanov evidently does not care to recall Marxism.

I
quoted the words of Rosa
Luxemburg,
who on August
4, 1914,
called German Social-Democracy a
“stinking corpse”. And the Plekhanovs, Goldenbergs and Co. feel
“offended”. On whose behalf? On behalf of the Germanchauvinists,
because they were called chauvinists!

They
have got themselves in a mess, these poor Russian
social-chauvinists—socialists in word and chauvinists in deed.

Notes

[1] i.e.
the standing army to be replaced by the arming of the whole
people.—Lenin

[2] i.e.,
a state of which the Paris
Commune was
the prototype.—Lenin

[3] Instead
of “Social-Democracy”, whose official leaders throughout the
world have betrayed socialism and deserted to the bourgeoisie (the
“defencists” and the vacillating “Kautskyites”), we must call
ourselves the Communist
Party.—Lenin

[4] The
“Centre”
in the international Social-Democratic movement is the trend which
vacillates between the chauvinists (=“defencists”) and
internationalists, i.e., Kautsky and Co. in Germany, Longuet and Co.
in France, Chkheidze and Co. in Russia, Turati and Co. in Italy,
MacDonald and Co. in Britain, etc.—Lenin